Allowed¶19

Nand Kishore Garg v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-32 Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/4156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 153C limitation; Section 153A; ten-year reopening period reckoning; block assessment time bar; satisfaction note dated 24.06.2022; search and seizure under Section 132; Alankit Group; AY 2013-14 time barred; notice dated 30.09.2022; Ojjus Medicare followed; writ petition allowed; notice and consequential proceedings set aside; Income Tax Act, 1961; Delhi High Court division bench.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned notice dated 30.09.2022 under Section 153C and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto set aside; all pending applications disposed of. ¶19

Nand Kishore Garg Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned notice dated 30.09.2022 under Section 153C and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto set aside; all pending applications disposed of.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 30.09.2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of AY 2013-14 is barred by limitation, being beyond the period of 10 years for which assessments could be reopened.

¶13

Court's answer

The period of 10 years for which assessments can be reopened under Section 153C of the Act read with Section 153A of the Act is required to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the notice for reopening is issued.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Since the satisfaction note in the present case was recorded on 24.06.2022, the ten-year period is required to be reckoned from the assessment year relevant to financial year 2022-23; consequently AY 2013-14 falls outside the permissible period and the impugned notice is barred by limitation.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia, JJ.) allowed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 30.09.2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14, premised on a satisfaction note dated 24.06.2022 drawn by the Assessing Officer of the searched entity following search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Act on the Alankit Group conducted on 18.10.2019. Following the coordinate Bench decision in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd (2024:DHC:2629-DB), the Court held that the ten-year period for reopening assessments under Section 153C read with Section 153A must be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the notice for reopening is issued; here, from the assessment year relevant to FY 2022-23, rendering AY 2013-14 time-barred. The impugned notice and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto were set aside and pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~93

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4156/2024 CM APPL. 16960/2024 NAND KISHORE GARG .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr Ruchesh Sinha and Ms Monalisha Maity, Advocates.

¶5

Versus

¶6

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTAL CIRCLE-32 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Puneet Rai, SSC, Mr Ashvini Kumar and Mr Rishabh Nangia, SCs and Mr Nikhil Jain, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

¶8

O R D E R % 19.03.2025

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 30.09.2022 [ impugned notice ] issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act ] in respect of the Assessment Year [ AY ] 2013-14 and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

¶10

The impugned notice was premised on the search and seizure operations that were conducted under Section 132 of the Act in respect of Alankit Group of cases on 18.10.2019. It is alleged that during the course of the search, certain incriminating documents pertaining to the petitioner were found, which would have a bearing on the tax chargeable on the petitioner’s income.

¶11

Accordingly, a satisfaction note dated 24.06.2022 was prepared by the Assessing Officer [ AO ] of the searched entity. Pursuant thereto, the impugned notice was issued.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2025 at 14:40:00

¶13

It is the petitioner’s case that the said notice is barred by limitation as the AY 2013-14 is beyond the period of 10 years for which assessments could be reopened.

¶14

Concededly, the aforesaid issue is covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench of this court in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC: 2629-DB. The period of 10 years for which assessments can be reopened under Section 153C of the Act read with Section 153A of the Act is required to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the notice for reopening is issued. In the present case, the satisfaction note was recorded on 24.06.2022. Thus, the period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the assessment year relevant to financial year 2022-23. The learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a tabular statement setting out the ten Assessment Years that will be covered in the present case. The same is reproduced below:

¶15

S.No.	A.Y
1.	2023-24
2.	2022-23
3.	2021-22
4.	2020-21
5.	2019-20
6.	2018-19
7.	2017-18
8.	2016-17
9.	2015-16
10.	2014-15
11.	2013-14 (Time barred)

¶16

There is no cavil with the aforesaid tabular statement.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/03/2025 at 14:40:00

¶19

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned notice, as well as all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, are set aside. 7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All the pending applications are also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J

MARCH 19, 2025 M

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶24

Nand Kishore Garg v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-32 Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishore Garg v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-32 Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Rajnikant Verma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner

Rajan Nagpal Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Banwari Aromas Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt Twinkle Gupta Vs the L T Governor of Delhi and Ors.

Srodeep Infra Developers Limited Vs Income Tax Officer and Ors.

Charu Chains and Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Gurpreet Singh @Gopi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shama Bhatia Vs D.D.A.

Rishabhnath Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mainee Steel Works Pvt. Ltd.

Munish Dabas Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr.

Rubber Spares Industries India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax DELHI7

M/S K. S. Jain Builders Vs Indian Railway Welfare Organization

Ameeta Goyal Vs the Assessment Unit of Income Tax & Ors.

Tript Singh Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.